Withdrawal of a gun licence of a person with a criminal record does not violate the ECHR
JUDGMENT
Ilinca v. Romania 24.10.2019 (no. 50882/15)
SUMMARY
Withdrawal of a permit authorising the possession of firearms.
Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Ilinca
submitted that the domestic courts’ decisions had lacked sufficient reasoning and had been based
on secret information to which he had not had access.
The Court noted that the domestic courts had considered the crucial question of whether Mr Ilinca
had represented a public order risk justifying the withdrawal of his licence, which they had answered
in the affirmative. It also noted that a national police memorandum had not been disclosed to Mr
Ilinca because it was a classified document. The memorandum had, however, not been decisive in
justifying the dismissal of Mr Ilinca’s appeal. Consequently, the Court could not discern any
appearance of a violation of the principles of a fair trial and declared the application ill-founded.
PROVISION
Article 6
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Ion Ilinca, is a Romanian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Balilesti.
The case concerns the withdrawal of a permit authorising the possession of firearms.
In 2008 Mr Ilinca obtained a permit authorising him to acquire and possess firearms, following which
he bought a revolver, a hunting rifle and ammunition.
In 2013 the firearms authority informed him that the permit had been withdrawn as he represented
a threat to public order, national security and to the physical integrity of individuals. Mr Ilinca
disputed the decision but his case was dismissed by the court of Argeş, which noted that between
2007 and 2010 Mr Ilinca had received two fines for a breach of the peace, indecent conduct and
traffic offences.
In 2015 that judgment was upheld by Piteşti Court of Appeal, which noted among other things that
the offences in question, even though they had been committed without violence, showed that Mr
Ilinca represented a threat to public order. It further noted that secret information had been taken
into account by the firearms authority to justify the withdrawal of the permit. That information had
been admitted in evidence but Mr Ilinca had not been given access to the file. The Court of Appeal
referred to this information in general terms to avoid breaching its confidentiality.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 6 (right to a fair trial)
1. Complaint concerning the insufficient reasoning of the judicial decisions
The Court noted that the domestic courts had not confined themselves to purely and simply
upholding the arguments relied on by the firearms authority to withdraw Mr Ilinca’s gun licence. On
the contrary, the courts had themselves assessed the question which had been crucial to the
outcome of the case, that is to say, whether or not Mr Ilinca had represented a threat to public order
justifying the withdrawal of his licence, and they had replied in the affirmative. Thus the Argeș court
had held that that threat had been evidenced by the applicant’s convictions for a breach of the
peace, indecent conduct and traffic offences. The court of appeal had ruled that those penalties had
demonstrated that the applicant represented a threat to public order. Furthermore, it had replied to
the pleas put forward by the applicant.
Reiterating that the assessment of evidence and the application of domestic law was a matter
primarily for national courts, the Court ruled that in the present case it could not be held that the
domestic courts’ decisions had lacked sufficient reasoning or that the applicant’s case had not
received a fair hearing.
2. Complaint concerning a breach of the adversarial principle owing to a lack of access to classified
information
The Court noted that only the police memorandum presented to the court of appeal had not been
disclosed to Mr Ilinca, because it had been classified. However, that document had not been decisive
in justifying the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal. The court of appeal had only referred to it in
general terms in order to highlight the fact that under firearms legislation, the firearms authority
was empowered to carry out such checks. Moreover, the court of appeal had held, in the light of the
practical circumstances of the case, that the confidentiality of that information had to be protected.
Consequently, the Court could not discern any appearance of a violation of the principles of a fair
trial. On the contrary, it considered that the possibility given to Mr Ilinca in the domestic courts to
discuss the evidence on file and to present any observations and further evidence which he had
considered necessary in support of his action had been sufficient to ensure compliance with the
adversarial principle and equality of arms.
In conclusion the application was manifestly ill-founded.
